Ultraviolet Disinfection

Project funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Assistance Agreement No. CX824652

Introduction
Human exposure to wastewater discharged into the environment has increased within the past 15 to 20 years with the rise in population and the greater demand for water resources for recreation and other purposes. The organisms of concern in domestic wastewater include enteric bacteria, viruses, and protozoan cysts. Some common microorganisms found in domestic wastewater and the diseases associated with them are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Infectious Agents Potentially Present in Untreated Domestic Wastewater
Organism
Bacteria Escherichia coli (enterotoxigenic) Leptospira (spp.) Salmonella typhi Salmonella (2,100 serotypes) Shigella (4 spp.) Vibrio cholerae Protozoa Balantidium coli Cryptosporidium parvum Entamoeba histolytica Giardia lamblia Helminths Ascaris lumbricoides T. solium Trichuris trichiura Viruses Enteroviruses (72 types, e.g., polio, echo, and coxsackie viruses) Hepatitis A virus Norwalk agent Rotavirus

Fact Sheet

for when choosing a suitable disinfectant for a treatment facility: ability to penetrate and destroy infectious agents under normal operating conditions; lack of characteristics that could be hazardous to people and the environment before or during disinfection; safe and easy handling, storage, and shipping; absence of toxic residuals and mutagenic or carcinogenic compounds after disinfection; and affordable capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Disinfection Alternatives
Disease Caused
Gastroenteritis Leptospirosis Typhoid fever Salmonellosis Shigellosis (bacillary dysentery) Cholera Balantidiasis Cryptosporidiosis Amebiasis (amoebic dysentery) Giardiasis Ascariasis Taeniasis Trichuriasis Gastroenteritis, heart anomalies, meningitis Infectious hepatitis Gastroenteritis Gastroenteritis

Adapted from: Crites and Tchobanoglous (1998) with permission from The McGraw-Hill Companies

This fact sheet was developed by Clement Solomon, Peter Casey, Colleen Mackne, and Andrew Lake. 1998 by the National Small Flows Clearinghouse

Disinfection is considered to be the primary mechanism for the inactivation/ destruction of pathogenic organisms to prevent the spread of waterborne diseases to downstream users and the environment. It is important that wastewater be adequately treated prior to disinfection in order for any disinfectant to be effective. There is no perfect disinfectant. However, there are certain characteristics to look

The three most common methods of disinfection in the U.S. are chlorination, ozonation, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. Chlorine, the most widely used disinfectant for municipal wastewater, destroys target organisms by oxidation of cellular material. It may be applied as chlorine gas, hypochlorite solutions, and other chlorine compounds in solid or liquid form. Like chlorine, ozone is a strong oxidizing agent. It is an unstable gas that is generated by an electrical discharge through dry air or pure oxygen. UV radiation, generated by an electrical discharge through mercury vapor, penetrates the genetic material of microorganisms and retards their ability to reproduce. All three disinfection methods described above can effectively meet the discharge permit requirements for treated wastewater. However, the advantages and disadvantages of each must be weighed when selecting a method of disinfection. The advantages and disadvantages of UV disinfection are discussed below.

WWFSOM20

Advantages
UV disinfection is effective at inactivating most viruses, spores, and cysts. UV disinfection is a physical process rather than a chemical disinfectant; thus eliminating the need to generate, handle, transport, or store toxic/hazardous or corrosive chemicals. continued

ETI
Environmental Technology Initiative

A Technical Overview

 There is no residual effect that can be harmful to humans or aquatic life. UV disinfection is user-friendly for operators. UV disinfection has a shorter contact time when compared with other disinfectants (approximately 20 to 30 seconds with low-pressure lamps). UV disinfection equipment requires less space than other methods.

Flow in UV horizontal lamp module with support racks Automatic level control UV bank 2 Flow out

UV bank 1 Note: A UV bank is composed of a number of UV modules.

Disadvantages
Low dosages may not effectively inactivate some viruses, spores, and cysts. Organisms can sometimes repair and reverse the destructive effects of UV through a repair mechanism, known as photoreactivation, or in the absence of light known as dark repair. A preventive maintenance program is necessary to control fouling of tubes. Turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) in the wastewater can render UV disinfection ineffective. UV disinfection with low-pressure lamps is not as effective for secondary effluent with TSS levels above 30 mg/L. UV disinfection is not as cost-effective as chlorination, but costs are competitive when chlorination-dechlorination is used and fire codes are met. There is no measurable residual to indicate the efficacy of UV disinfection.
(a)

Flow in

Flap gate level control UV vertical lamp module with support racks

Flow out

(b) Figure 1:
Isometric cut-away views of typical UV disinfection systems with cover grating

Process Description

removed: (a) horizontal lamp system parallel to flow (adapted from Trojan A UV disinfection system transfers electromagnetic Technologies, Inc.) and (b) vertical lamp system perpendicular to flow (adapted energy from a mercury arc lamp to an organisms genetic from Infilco Degremont, Inc.) material (DNA and RNA). When UV radiation penetrates Source: Crites and Tchobanoglous (1998), used with permission from The McGraw-Hill the cell wall of an organism, it destroys the cells ability to Companies reproduce. The effectiveness of a UV disinfection system depends on Two types of UV disinfection reactor configurations exist: the characteristics of the wastewater, the intensity of UV contact types and noncontact types. In both the contact and the radiation, the time the microorganisms are exposed to the noncontact types, wastewater can flow either perpendicular or radiation, and the reactor configuration. For any one treatment parallel to the lamps. plant, disinfection success is directly related to the concentration In the contact reactor, a series of mercury lamps are of colloidal and particulate constituents in the wastewater. enclosed in quartz sleeves to minimize the cooling effects of the The main components of a UV disinfection system are wastewater. Figure 1 shows two UV contact reactors with mercury arc lamps, a reactor, and ballasts. The source of UV submerged lamps placed parallel and perpendicular to the radiation is either the low-pressure or medium-pressure mercury direction of the wastewater flow. Flap gates or weirs are used to arc lamp with low or high intensities. control the level of the wastewater. The optimum wavelength to effectively inactivate microorIn the noncontact reactor, the UV lamps are suspended ganisms is in the range of 250 to 270 nm. The intensity of the outside a transparent conduit, which carries the wastewater to be radiation emitted by the lamp dissipates as the distance from the disinfected. However, this configuration is not widely used. lamp increases. Low-pressure lamps emit essentially monochroIn both types of reactors, a ballastor control box matic light at a wavelength of 253.7 nm. provides a starting voltage for the lamps and maintains a Standard lengths of the low-pressure lamps are 0.75 and 1.5 continuous current. meters with diameters of 1.5 to 2.0 cm. The ideal lamp wall temperature is between 95 and 122 F. Key Considerations Medium-pressure lamps are generally used for large The following are three critical areas to be considered when facilities. They have approximately 15 to 20 times the germichoosing a UV disinfection system. The first is primarily cidal UV intensity of low-pressure lamps. The medium-pressure determined by the manufacturer; the second, by design and lamp disinfects faster and has greater penetration capability O&M; and the third has to be controlled at the treatment facility. because of its higher intensity. However, these lamps operate at 1) Hydraulic properties of the reactor: Ideally, a UV disinfection higher temperatures with a higher energy consumption. system should have a uniform flow with enough axial motion

continued

Ultraviolet Disinfection

(radial mixing) to maximize exposure to UV radiation. The path that an organism takes in the reactor determines the amount of UV radiation it will be exposed to before inactivation. A reactor must be designed to eliminate short-circuiting and/or dead zones, which can result in inefficient use of power and reduced contact time. 2) Intensity of the UV radiation: Factors affecting the intensity are the age of the lamps, lamp fouling, and the configuration and placement of lamps in the reactor. 3) Wastewater characteristics: These include the flow rate, suspended and colloidal solids, initial bacterial density, and other physical and chemical parameters. Both the concentration of TSS and the concentration of particle-associated microorganisms determine how much UV radiation ultimately reaches the target organism. The higher these concentrations, the lower the UV radiation absorbed by the organisms. Various wastewater characteristics and their effects on UV disinfection are given in Table 2.
Table 2: Wastewater Characteristics Affecting UV Disinfection Performance
Wastewater Characteristic
Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)

accompanying each cluster of lamps. Lamps were cleaned on a regular basis using an in-channel cleaning system. The safety concerns for both low-pressure and high-intensity UV systems regarding exposure to UV radiation and electrical hazards are low under normal operating conditions. However, precautionary measures should be taken when operating high-intensity lamps to avoid overexposure. The risk was not considered major by the GBWTP and was outweighed by the potential savings of using high-intensity UV systems. At the GBWTP, a medium-pressure, high-intensity system was found to be more economical than the conventional low-pressure systems in both capital and life-cycle costs.
Northwest Bergen County Utility Authority Wastewater Treatment Plant in Waldwick, New Jersey

Effects on UV Disinfection
Minor effect, if any. Minor effect, if any. Although, if a large portion of the BOD is humic and/or unsaturated (or conjugated) compounds, then UV transmittance may be diminished. Affects solubility of metals that can absorb UV light. Can lead to the precipitation of carbonates on quartz tubes. High absorbance of UV radiation. Affects solubility of metals and carbonates. Absorbs UV radiation and shields embedded bacteria.

Hardness

Humic materials, Iron pH TSS

Adapted from: Darby et al. (1995) with permission from the Water Environment Research Foundation

The use of UV disinfection for wastewater treatment has increased dramatically in the last few years due to the impact of chlorinated organics from sewage effluent on receiving waters. Such was the case with the Northwest Bergen County Utility Authority (NBCUA) wastewater treatment plant located in Waldwick, New Jersey. In 1989, the treatment plant had to convert from chlorination to an alternative disinfection technology with zero residuals after treatment. This change was brought about when the zero residual regulation was imposed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection with the passage of the Toxic Catastrophic Prevention Act. Several factors, such as public safety and recent findings and concerns over the environmental impact of chemical releases and spills, have led to more stringent permit requirements for chlorine. Also, there were other conditions that the treatment plant had to meet if chlorine use was to continue. To avoid the escalated costs that could be incurred and to be in compliance with the new regulations, the wastewater treatment plant switched to UV disinfection. The UV system was installed within the existing chlorine contact tanks, along with an extension to the existing building for easy maintenance during bad weather. The UV system at NBCUA was able to meet fecal coliform levels (200 count per 100 mL) better than chlorination since its installation in August 1989.

Application
UV disinfection can be used in plants of various sizes that provide secondary or advanced levels of treatment.
Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Operation and Maintenance

The proper O&M of a UV disinfection system ensures that sufficient UV radiation is transmitted to the organisms to render them sterile. All surfaces between the UV radiation and the target organisms must be clean, and the ballasts, lamps, and reactor must be functioning at peak efficiency. Inadequate cleaning is one of the most common causes of a UV systems ineffectiveness. The quartz sleeves or Teflon tubes need to be cleaned regularly by mechanical wipers, ultrasonics, or chemicals. The cleaning frequency is very site-specific, with some systems needing to be cleaned more often than others. Chemical cleaning is most commonly done with citric acid. Other cleaning agents include mild vinegar solutions and sodium hydrosulfite. Noncontact reactor systems are most effectively cleaned by using sodium hydrosulfite. A combination of cleaning agents should be tested to find the agent most suitable for the wastewater characteristics without producing harmful or toxic by-products.
continued

The Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant (GBWTP) in Edmonton, Alberta, was required to use disinfection to meet water quality standards for contact recreation in Alberta. During that period, the average and peak design flow rates for this treatment facility were 82 and 110 million gallons per day (mgd), respectively. A pilot study was conducted to review current UV disinfection systems, effectiveness of lamp intensities, and cost. UV disinfection was determined to be the most efficient disinfection system to achieve the required treatment levels. Lamp fouling is a potential problem among UV systems, but with proper cleaning and O&M, it should not interrupt the systems disinfection capability. Lamp cleaning at the GBWTP was achieved by a mechanical wiping mechanism

Ultraviolet Disinfection

Any UV disinfection system should be pilot tested prior to full-scale operation to ensure that it will meet discharge permit requirements for a particular site.

Table 3a: Capital Costs for UV Disinfection Systems

Item
UV lamps 15 mgd 510 mgd 10100 mgd Construction cost for physical facilities

Range*
($/lamp) 3971,365 343594 274588 (% of UV lamp cost) 75200

Typical*
($/lamp) 575 475 400 (% of UV lamp cost) 150

Life Span
The average lamp life ranges from 8,760 to 14,000 working hours, and the lamps are usually replaced after 12,000 hours of use. Operating procedures should be set to reduce the on/off cycles of the lamps, since their efficacy is reduced with repeated cycles. The ballast must be compatible with the lamps and should be ventilated to protect it from excessive heating, which may shorten its life or even result in fires. Although the life cycle of ballasts is approximately 10 to 15 years, they are usually replaced every 10 years. Quartz sleeves will last about 5 to 8 years but are generally replaced every 5 years.

Table 3b: O&M Costs for UV Disinfection Systems

Item
Power (per kWh) Replacement Lamp Ballast Sleeve Chemicals (lamp/yr.) Staffing (per hour) Misc. equipment repair Total

Unit Cost ($)

0.08 40 each 80 each 40 each 5 36

Cost/Year, $/Lamp*
29.78 14.60 4 4 5 1827 1014.38 85.3898.76

Cost
The cost of UV disinfection systems is dependent on the manufacturer, the site, the capacity of the plant, and the characteristics of the wastewater to be disinfected. Total costs of UV disinfection can be competitive with chlorination when the dechlorination step is included. The annual operating costs for UV disinfection include power consumption; cleaning chemicals and supplies; miscellaneous equipment repairs (2.5% of total equipment cost); replacement of lamps, ballasts, and sleeves; and staffing requirements. Costs have decreased in recent years due to improvements in lamp and system designs, increased competition, and improvements in the systems reliability. Medium-pressure lamps cost four to five times as much as low-pressure lamps. However, the reduced number of lamps necessary for adequate disinfection could make medium-pressure lamps cost-effective. Listed in Tables 3a and 3b are the results of a study conducted by the Water Environment Research Federation in 1995 for secondary effluents from disinfection facilities at average dry weather flow rates of 1, 10, and 100 mgd (2.25, 20, and 175 mgd peak wet weather flow, respectively).

* Costs are based on a 1993 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 5,210 Adapted from: Darby et al. (1995) with permission from the Water Environment Research Foundation

References
Crites, R. and G. Tchobanoglous. 1998. Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems. The McGraw-Hill Companies. New York, New York. Darby, J.; M. Heath; J. Jacangelo; F. Loge; P. Swaim; and G. Tchobanoglous. 1995. Comparison of UV Irradiation to Chlorination: Guidance for Achieving Optimal UV Performance. Water Environment Research Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia. Fahey, R. J. Dec. 1990. The UV Effect on Wastewater. Water Engineering & Management. vol. 137. no. 12. pp. 1518. Kwan, A.; J. Archer; F. Soroushian; A. Mohammed; and G. Tchobanoglous. March 1720, 1996. Factors for Selection of a High-Intensity UV Disinfection System for a Large-Scale Application. Proceedings from the Water Environment Federation (WEF) Speciality Conference: Disinfecting Wastewater for Discharge and Reuse. WEF. Portland, Oregon.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3d ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies. New York, New York. Task Force on Wastewater Disinfection. 1986. Wastewater Disinfection. Manual of Practice No. FD-10. Water Pollution Control Federation. Alexandria, Virginia. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986a. Design Manual: Municipal Wastewater Disinfection. EPA Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/625/1-86/021. . 1986b. Disinfection with Ultraviolet LightDesign, Construct, and Operate for Success. EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio. . 1988. Ultra Violet Disinfection: Special Evaluation Project. EPA Region 5. Chicago, Illinois. The mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) or U.S. EPA. For more information on UV disinfection or a list of other fact sheets, contact the NSFC at West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6064, Morgantown, WV 26506-6064. Phone: (800) 6248301 or (304) 293-4191. Fax: (304) 293-3161. World Wide Web site: http://www.nsfc.wvu.edu. The NSFC provides free and low-cost informational services and products to help homeowners and small communities address their wastewater needs. Also, information about manufacturers, consultants, regulations, and facilities can be obtained from the NSFCs databases.

Ultraviolet Disinfection